Search

It has been suggested that differences in body size between consumer and resource species may have important implications for interaction strengths, population dynamics, and eventually food web structure, function, and evolution. Still, the general distribution of consumer-'resource body-size ratios in real ecosystems, and whether they vary systematically among habitats or broad taxonomic groups, is poorly understood. Using a unique global database on consumer and resource body sizes, we show that the mean body-size ratios of aquatic herbivorous and detritivorous consumers are several orders of magnitude larger than those of carnivorous predators. Carnivorous predator-prey body-size ratios vary across different habitats and predator and prey types (invertebrates, ectotherm, and endotherm vertebrates). Predator-prey body-size ratios are on average significantly higher (1) in freshwater habitats than in marine or terrestrial habitats, (2) for vertebrate than for invertebrate predators, and (3) for invertebrate than for ectotherm vertebrate prey. If recent studies that relate body-size ratios to interaction strengths are general, our results suggest that mean consumer-resource interaction strengths may vary systematically across different habitat categories and consumer types.

Trophic information—who eats whom—and species' body sizes are two of the most basic descriptions necessary to understand community structure as well as ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Consumer-resource body size ratios between predators and their prey, and parasitoids and their hosts, have recently gained increasing attention due to their important implications for species' interaction strengths and dynamical population stability. This data set documents body sizes of consumers and their resources. We gathered body size data for the food webs of Skipwith Pond, a parasitoid community of grass-feeding chalcid wasps in British grasslands; the pelagic community of the Benguela system, a source web based on broom in the United Kingdom; Broadstone Stream, UK; the Grand Cariçaie marsh at Lake Neuchâtel, Switzerland; Tuesday Lake, USA; alpine lakes in the Sierra Nevada of California; Mill Stream, UK; and the eastern Weddell Sea Shelf, Antarctica. Further consumer-resource body size data are included for planktonic predators, predatory nematodes, parasitoids, marine fish predators, freshwater invertebrates, Australian terrestrial consumers, and aphid parasitoids. Containing 16 807 records, this is the largest data set ever compiled for body sizes of consumers and their resources. In addition to body sizes, the data set includes information on consumer and resource taxonomy, the geographic location of the study, the habitat studied, the type of the feeding interaction (e.g., predacious, parasitic) and the metabolic categories of the species (e.g., invertebrate, ectotherm vertebrate). The present data set was gathered with the intent to stimulate research on effects of consumer-resource body size patterns on food-web structure, interaction-strength distributions, population dynamics, and community stability. The use of a common data set may facilitate cross-study comparisons and understanding of the relationships between different scientific approaches and models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between average body masses (M) of individuals within species and densities (N) of populations of different species and the mechanisms and consequences of this relationship have been extensively studied. Most published work has focused on collections of data for populations of species from a single broad taxon or trophic level (such as birds or herbivorous mammals), rather than on the populations of all species occurring together in a local food web, a very different ecological context. We here provide a systematic analysis of relationships between M and N in community food webs (hereafter simply webs), using newly collected, taxonomically detailed data from 166 European and North American pelagic, soil, riparian, benthic, inquiline, and estuarine webs. We investigated three topics. First, we compared log(N)-versus-log(M) scatter plots for webs and the slope b1 of the ordinary-least-squares (OLS) regression line log(N) = b1 log(M) + a1 to the predictions of two theories (Section V.A). The energetic equivalence hypothesis (EEH) was not originally intended for populations within webs and is used here as a null-model. The second theory, which extends the EEH to webs by recognizing the inefficiency of the transfer of energy from resources to consumers (atrophic transfer correction, or TTC), was originally proposed for webs aggregated to trophic levels. The EEH predicts approximate linearity of the log(N)-versus-log(M) relationship, with slope -¾ for all webs. The relationship was approximately linear for most but not all webs studied here. However, for webs that were approximately linear, the slope was not typically -¾, as slopes varied widely from web to web. Predictions of the EEH with TTC were also largely falsified by our data. The EEH with TTC again predicts linearity with b1 <-¾ always, meaning that populations of larger taxa in a web absorb less energy from the environment than populations of smaller taxa. In the majority of the linear webs of this study, on the contrary, b1>-¾, indicating that populations of larger taxa absorb more energy than populations of smaller ones. Slopes b1 > -¾ can occur without violating the conservation of energy, even in webs that are energetically isolated above trophic level 0 (discussed later). Second, for each web, we compared log-log scatter plots of the M and N values of the populations of each taxon with three alternate linear statistical models (Section V.B). Trophic relationships determined which taxa entered the analysis but played no further role except for the Tuesday Lake and Ythan Estuary webs. The assumptions of the model log(N) = b1 log(M) + a1+ 휀1 (including linearity of the expectation) were widely but not universally supported by our data. We tested and confirmed a hypothesis of Cohen and Carpenter (2005) that the model log(N) = b1 log(M) + a1 + 휀 1 describes web scatter plots better, in general, than the model log(M) = b2 log(N) + a2 + 휀2. The former model is also better than the model of symmetric linear regression. Third, since not all of our log-log scatter plots formed approximately linear patterns, we explored causes of nonlinearity and examined alternative models (Section V.C). We showed that uneven lumping of species to web nodes can cause log(N)-versus-log(M) scatter plots to appear nonlinear. Attributes of the association between N and M depended on the type of ecosystem from which data were gathered. For instance, webs from the soil of organic farms were much less likely to exhibit linear log(N)-versus-log(M) relationships than webs from other systems. Webs with a larger range of measured log(M) values were more likely to appear linear.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]